That was fun; now, try a debate

From today’s editorial: The seven-way gubernatorial debate wasn’t one at all. It’s time for Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Paladino to get down to business.

A debate? Sorry, wrong word. All seven candidates for governor, ranging from the ones you’ve surely heard of to the ones you may never hear from again, together on a stage to answer some questions and ignore others, doesn’t meet our definition of a political debate.

That was more like a meet the candidates night at Hofstra University on Monday. If that conjures images of a pleasant yet boring gathering of earnest political aspirants and voters alike, then the so-called gubernatorial debate could fairly be described as C-SPAN meets “Saturday Night Live.” Civics, with some entertainment added to the mix.

It was at once harmless and engaging to see everyone who’s gotten on the ballot for governor sitting side-by-side and treated like political equals, as if they all stood a reasonable chance of actually getting elected and having to solve the woes of government they railed against. How could you not relish in, or at least chuckle at the irony of Kristin Davis, a former madam who claims Governor Spitzer was one of her clients, as a legitimate candidate for the office he held.

They’ve gotten their 90 minutes — Jimmy McMillan, who surely has a career ahead of him in show business, if not the people’s business; and Warren Redlich, too. The hometown kid has gone from the Guilderland Town Board to the statewide stage.

But now let’s have a debate. New York still needs serious, vigorous and sustained exchange on the issues that clearly matter to voters — impossibly high property taxes, dysfunctional and corrupt government and a regional economy that’s struggled even in good times.

Voters need to hear from Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino, one-on-one and in a format that demands answers, not theatrics.

Much of what they said on those issues at Hofstra — when it was their turn, that is; sometimes for just 30 seconds — reflected agreement. Mr. Cuomo, the Albany insider — no matter how he might prefer to be portrayed, and Mr. Paladino, the ultimate outsider, vented frustration, even exasperation at how state government has come to work and been allowed to deteriorate. Let’s hear, in detail, how they would fix all that. Ninety minutes would be a start. Another 90 minutes for a rematch might enable New Yorkers to cast their vote with more confidence than the carnival of a gubernatorial campaign so far would allow.

One story to emerge Monday night was, no surprise, how polished Mr. Cuomo’s remarks were. But another was that Mr. Paladino managed to stick to the issues and not offend anyone.

It’s for one thing for Mr. Cuomo to dodge a genuine debate with someone prone to outbursts and insults. He owes it to the 19 million people he wants to lead, however, to debate an opponent who can challenge him in a dialogue on the specifics of cutting spending, controlling taxes, reforming Medicaid, improving schools, consolidating government and creating jobs.

Put all that on the agenda for Cuomo vs. Paladino: the First Debate.

2 Responses

I was at the Hofstra debate. It was an excellent political gathering. Just enough structure to get something done. Though, a sense of community among the audience and politicos to allow some laughter, applause, affirmations, and group communication.

If politics is not fun, then regular people won’t come, young people won’t come, people with a life won’t come. Being over serious is for people with money on the table. Being over serious is for the people at the top of our patriarchy, trying to be our authority figures.

A basic of democracy is that everyone who is a voter has a right to run for office. Our democracy is a fraud if it is true, as this article supposes, that some people have NO CHANCE of being elected.

So, everyone who does the hard work to be on the ballot – which is very hard work because of NY’s arcane election law – everyone on the ballot is owed a chance to address the public. Any debate held with less than ALL THE BALLOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATES is a debate that should be considered an illegal campaign contribution to the candidates invited.

I have a solution to having another debate with more attention to specifics and details. The real problem is that one person – Jimmy McMillan – came and offered a needed and dramatic presentation of the issue he wanted to get across. He “stole the show”, but he did it because he “won the debate”, and had a good point.

There should be at least one more debate. All the ballot qualified candidates should be invited. But, people should negotiate with Jimmy McMillan to give him a political concession for his cause of renters, and let him come only to give an opening speech as the retired champion of the debate cycle.

That would be useful AND fair to all parties involved.

And, Mr. McGrath, if you ever want to run for office, I will defend your right to run, to be taken seriously, and to be invited to the debates.

I appreciated the debate with all the candidates. I learned something new about each of them. I want to know about ALL the choices from their own spoken words. I didn’t see any “crackpots” running, and only one single issue candidate, McMillan, who did a pretty good job of telling us that there are significant numbers of people who can’t afford housing. I doubt that the two anointed leaders are very much aware of that problem. Hawkins seems to have a really good handle on the issues with some refreshing ideas on how to solve them. I want to hear more from him. Barron, Redlich and Davis also presented themselves very well. In any case, I want to hear more from ALL the candidates in at least one more debate and I wouldn’t object to two more. I won’t watch a debate with only Cuomo and Paladino. It is grossly unfair to those who had to get more signatures to get on the ballot. I don’t support unfairness and I would boycott a two-candidate debate. Let’s have another 7-candidate debate!